|
Author
|
Topic: Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
Message 50 of 256 (211074)
05-25-2005 8:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by gnojek
05-24-2005 4:07 PM
|
|
silly
George Lucas had the entire plot of Star Wars laid out 30 years ago, so Revenge of the Sith is not some kind of truth movie. However, he also says that the comparison between current events is interesting, though unplanned.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by gnojek, posted 05-24-2005 4:07 PM | | gnojek has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 51 of 256 (211075)
05-25-2005 8:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by Alexander
05-24-2005 7:09 AM
|
|
Re: What about this new agreement?
quote:
this is all about the Supreme Court, and I guess the democrats kept themselves in the game at least.
Basically, if the filibuster had been lost, then Jim Dobson of the Family Research Council would have chosen the next supreme Court justice. Does anyone see cracks appearing in the great Republican stronghold that is Congress? First this filibuster thing, now the vote in the house on stem cell research. I think the extremists might be losing a bit of their stranglehold on the more moderate factions. I smell mutiny.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by Alexander, posted 05-24-2005 7:09 AM | | Alexander has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by Monk, posted 05-25-2005 8:37 AM | | nator has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 87 of 256 (211312)
05-25-2005 9:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Monk
05-25-2005 8:37 AM
|
|
Re: Republican compromise
quote:
That's better than Teddy Kennedy choosing the next Supreme Court justice.
Why? Because last time I checked, Kennedy is supportive more freedoms for individual Americans, in contrast to Dobson, who wants everyone in the US to be forced to adhere to his extremist Christian morality.
quote:
And it's not cracks in the Republican stronghold. It's called compromise, ever hear of that?
Up until very recently, the leadership of the Republican party had apparently never heard of "compromise".
quote:
That means putting ideology aside to further the people's business eventhough republicans have the power to move forward anyway.
Hmm, is Frist happy about this compromise? I don't think so. He was forced to compromise because the moderates in his party defied him.
quote:
Democrats won't remember this compromise when they are in power.
Oh, I think they certainly will remember the Republican Senators who defected. The will not forget Frist.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Monk, posted 05-25-2005 8:37 AM | | Monk has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 96 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 12:18 AM | | nator has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 88 of 256 (211314)
05-25-2005 9:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by Monk
05-25-2005 11:41 AM
|
|
Re: Republican compromise
You know, you are puffing on with the overblown, silly rhetoric about Kennedy, but I notice that you didn't counter my assesment of Dobson or the Family research Council at all. Tell me, am I overstating or misrepresenting Dobson's or the FRC's goals and positions like you are overstating Kennedy's?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by Monk, posted 05-25-2005 11:41 AM | | Monk has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 90 of 256 (211320)
05-25-2005 9:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by Monk
05-25-2005 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: Chicken little Democrats
quote:
They provide jobs,
...and take them away when they can get cheaper labor elsewhere. Corporate America lobbies the government heavily to promote pro-corporate tax breaks and protections and to oppose and suppress worker power and rights.
quote:
security,
...except when they close up the factory and leave your community high and dry, and they suppress unions and other collective bargaining attempts by labor.
quote:
health insurance,
...the costs of which is unbelievably huge and only getting higher. Also, the insurance industry itself is motivated by profit, so they have incentive to NOT pay to provide care to people if at all possible.
quote:
pensions,
...except when they decide they "can't" pay, and so default on the promise of compensation they made to their employees.
quote:
401k?s, among others. But we don?t recognize any of those benefits do we. No, in your mind they are big bad capitalist who only want slave labor.
Look, all of those things that the corporations offer are not done as some kind of big-hearted, generous favor to people. They NEED labor to make their money for them, and those benefits are a means to attract and retain that labor. That's why many crappy, low-skill jobs do not provide any benefits at all. A corporation cares only about one thing; profits. They are not just a larger version of a small mom and pop business. They are beholden not to their employees, but to their shareholders. And do you know who holds the most wealth in the form of investments in the US? It sure ain't the people slaving away in middle management somewhere.
quote:
Is there corruption in corporate America? Sure, as is the case in every enterprise involving humans.
So we should just ignore it,especially when it clearly has a large effect upon governmental policy?
quote:
But if you hate America so much, move to Cuba.
If you have such a problem with people ctiticizing America, then maybe you would prefer we change from a democracy where discussion and dissent is a vital part of the political process to a dictatorship, like China, where you aren't ever allowed to openly criticise those in power. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-25-2005 09:37 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by Monk, posted 05-25-2005 12:57 PM | | Monk has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 92 of 256 (211325)
05-25-2005 9:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by Monk
05-25-2005 5:27 PM
|
|
Re: Chicken little Democrats
quote:
By even liberal standards, you are waaay out there.
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the message where EZScience called himself a Marxist. Can you point me to that message? I actually thought I just read EZScience's post in which he said he didn't like many socialist government systems and how they tended to discourage people from becoming independent. Can you please explain how this is "waaaay out there by liberal standards"? Because it sure seems to me that you just said, in effect, "I know you are but what am I", and failed to actually address anything.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by Monk, posted 05-25-2005 5:27 PM | | Monk has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by Monk, posted 05-25-2005 11:28 PM | | nator has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 104 of 256 (211403)
05-26-2005 8:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by Monk
05-25-2005 11:28 PM
|
|
Re: Chicken little Democrats
Can you please explain how this is "waaaay out there quote:
His post is self evident, no further explanation is needed.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm just kinda dumb or something because I really need you to explain it to me. How was what EZScience said "waaaaay out there"?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by Monk, posted 05-25-2005 11:28 PM | | Monk has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 106 of 256 (211410)
05-26-2005 8:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by Monk
05-26-2005 12:18 AM
|
|
Re: Republican compromise
quote:
Do you want to know the difference? Dobson is a preacher. Ok? Do you understand that? He can discuss his views with Bill Frist or anyone else in government who chooses to listen to him. It seems that every time there is meeting with Dobson or any religous leader and a politician, it is publicized as proof of the formation of the "new fundamentalist theocracy" emerging in the US. That's ridiculous. There is no conspiracy when preachers meets with members of the government.
And who else are they meeting with? Are they also meeting with the president of NOW or Planned Parenthood or the National Science Foundation, or the ACLU, or the Sierra Club, or the Garment Workers of America union? It's important to note what organizations are NOT getting a hearing in the current administration, monk. Is is clear that Frist, Hastert, Bush, and others are voting the way Dobson and other conservative Christians would like them to. All we have to do is look at how they vote.
quote:
Dobson has a right to put his view forward and to express his opposition to those issues that he finds objectionable. You would claim it as your right to do the same.
Sure. What other views are being heard in Washington right now, judging by the actions and statements of the leadership?
quote:
He also has a right to express his opinions and his faith to his elected official as any citizen can. BUT HE CAN ONLY EXPRESS AN OPINION. Got it?
Are you kidding me? Dobson has incredible power in Washington because he, Robertson, Falwell, and others can influence one of the most important voting blocks in America; evangelical conservative Christians. The Republicans in power today are there in large part because Evangelical conservative Christians put them there, and the threat of taking away the votes is real.
quote:
Now look at Ted Kennedy. Ted has all of the freedoms of expression that Dobson does, he can put forward his agenda for a liberal society much to the angst of conservatives and he can be just as vociferous in defending his ideology as Dobson. But Ted has the power to vote in Congress, Dobson doesn't.
Yes, but are you seriously saying that Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and other radical conservative Christians do NOT have huge influence in Washington among those with the most power?
quote:
Kennedy has been a senator for years, chairman of commitees, inside the beltway . He wields much more power in the government than Dobson ever could.
I disagree. Dobson can deliver large amounts of votes. That makes him extremely powerful. He's a lobbyist. But anyway, you still haven't indicated exactly how Kennedy's views would make his choice for a SCOTUS justice a poor one. Can you please explain?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 12:18 AM | | Monk has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 115 by Monk, posted 05-26-2005 5:28 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 107 of 256 (211412)
05-26-2005 8:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 103 by Tal
05-26-2005 8:00 AM
|
|
Re: Republican compromise
quote:
60 minutes....would that be Dan Rather and cBS?
So, are you saying that a source of information that inflates or mistrpresents of lies about anything, even once, should be completely mistrusted forever after? Well then, I guess you should never believe a single thing that Bush says ever agin, right?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 103 by Tal, posted 05-26-2005 8:00 AM | | Tal has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 125 of 256 (211770)
05-27-2005 10:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by Monk
05-27-2005 10:08 AM
|
|
Huh?
How is disallowing a religious song at a publically-funded event "trying to rub out religion"? Religious people can have all the religion they want, it's just that our government can't sponsor it. Hey, are you ever going to list the reasons why Kennedy's choice for a SCOTUS justice would be worse than Dobson's?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 124 by Monk, posted 05-27-2005 10:08 AM | | Monk has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 126 by Monk, posted 05-27-2005 11:49 AM | | nator has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 138 of 256 (211914)
05-27-2005 4:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by Monk
05-27-2005 11:49 AM
|
|
Re: Huh?
quote:
The gov't isn't sponsoring it. Others were allowed to voice their religous beliefs at the same ceremony.
Oh, well that's not right.
Hey, are you ever going to list the reasons why Kennedy's choice for a SCOTUS justice would be worse than Dobson's? quote:
I've been waiting for you to list why Dobson's is worse than Kennedy. Are you going to do that anytime soon?
I already did way back in message #87 of this thread, and I also listed the goals and views of the FRC in the old thread where I first brought it up. Maybe you missed it.
Why? Because last time I checked, Kennedy is supportive more freedoms for individual Americans, in contrast to Dobson, who wants everyone in the US to be forced to adhere to his extremist Christian morality. Here are Dobson's lobbying goals for the Family Research Council, and exactly why it would be terrible for him to choose the next SCOTUS justice:
FRC’s Principal Issues: Since the early 1990’s, FRC has emerged as a leading conservative think-tank championing traditional family values by lobbying for state-sponsored prayer in public schools, private school vouchers, abstinence-only programs, filtering software on public library computers, the right to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. FRC’s objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America’s domestic and foreign policy. FRC has dedicated itself to working against reproductive freedom, sex education, equal rights for gays and lesbians and their families, funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FRC supports a school prayer amendment and would like to ‘disestablish’ the Department of Education. FRC's Activities: FRC has testified before congress on many pro-family issues, filed amicus briefs, and published a lot of reports that they regularly circulate to politicians. In September 2001, FRC’s president attacked President Bush for his implicit endorsement of the homosexual political agenda with the appointment of two openly gay men by the Bush administration. FRC has also defended the Boy Scout’s discriminatory practices against gay men and lesbians and has criticized the Girl Scouts for not having the same practice. FRC has joined many other right-wing conservative groups by attacking and boycotting Disney’s gay-friendly policies. FRC has lobbied against many equal rights measures that extend civil rights protections to gay and lesbian people, and has promoted the ex-gay movement as a way to combat civil rights measures for gay men and lesbians. FRC strives to ban all federal or state support for family planning services and overturn the right to an abortion. FRC is a strong supporter of abstinence-only education and opposes sex education that addresses contraception.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by Monk, posted 05-27-2005 11:49 AM | | Monk has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 139 of 256 (211918)
05-27-2005 4:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by Monk
05-27-2005 3:09 PM
|
|
quote:
If the parents are that concerned with the religious education of their son, then why are they sending him to Catholic school?
Because Catholic schools provide a superior education than public school? There are lots of non-catholics who send their kids to Cathilic school.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by Monk, posted 05-27-2005 3:09 PM | | Monk has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 171 of 256 (212122)
05-28-2005 1:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 159 by Phat
05-28-2005 9:15 AM
|
|
quote:
Nature worship is basically harmless. Its just not that bright!
That is an incredibly arrogant, patronizing, demeaning statement, phat. The really sad thing is you probably don't even realize it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 159 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 9:15 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 176 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 3:43 PM | | nator has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 172 of 256 (212123)
05-28-2005 1:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 160 by Phat
05-28-2005 9:22 AM
|
|
quote:
What about students that are "forced" to read Harry Potter books in class?
Yeah, and they shouldn't be forced to do any algebra, either, because it was invented by those evil Muslims.
quote:
What about being forced to sit through a gay pride assembly?
I'm sorry, what religion are the children being exposed to during a gay pride assembly?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 9:22 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 179 of 256 (212159)
05-28-2005 4:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 176 by Phat
05-28-2005 3:43 PM
|
|
quote:
Got a rise out of you, Schraff? That was my intent.
Great.
quote:
I have to endure numerous barbs directed at "outdated" Christrian thinking,
You are free to believe what you want to, of course, and so is everyone else. If you make claims that your particular faith is better than or more tru than any other, for example, then I'm going to question it. If you make any logical or factual claim that doesn't seem to stand up, I'm going to question it, and I would question Wiccans if they did the same things.
quote:
but if I even suggest that worshipping mother earth is a joke, I am labled as insensitive?? I am sorry if I offended you, Schraff.
But it is insensitive. If you want respect for your unfounded belief then you need to show respect for everybody else's unfounded belief. Who's to say which is correct, after all?
quote:
This is one of the roots behind the conflicting ideologies that are being filibustered.
One side wants to uphold pro religious beliefs and is ridiculed for such, while the other side wants to advocate respect for the planet and alternative human lifestyles and is ridiculed for such.
I don't really understand what you're talking about here, sorry.
quote:
Christians are criticised for attempts at legislating morality, right? Does it not occur to you that forcing our kids to accept nature worship and an almost holy reverence for the same is just as unfair?
Who is forcing all children to worship nature under penalty of law? Seriously, who is doing that? And have you completely lost any shred of critical thinking skill you used to possess? You are quoting a website run by PAT ROBERTSON. How sad.
quote:
If your school system already integrates liberal sex educators such as Planned Parenthood or homosexual advocates such as California's Project 10, you probably have grounds to object. Such programs usually cross over from objective teaching to advocating amorality. Appeal to your school board that the course undermines parental authority by implying to students that everyone their age is having sex, or by teaching that homosexuality is normal, or by telling students that they can easily and confidentially arrange abortions without their parents' knowledge. A religion can be any set of beliefs by which a person lives and trains their children to live, even amorality. If necessary, object on First Amendment grounds. Show that the state is illegally establishing a religion by advocating amorality.
Phatboy, how many unwanted teenage pregnancies occur in the US every year? How does this number compare to other industrialized nations that have comprehensive sex education in the schoos? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-28-2005 04:43 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 176 by Phat, posted 05-28-2005 3:43 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2